Exodus Typology in the Book of Hosea

The book of Hosea exhibits a significant exodus typology. Typology is the phenomenon where aspects of present or future salvation history are modeled on persons, institutions, or events from past salvation history. The exodus typology of Hosea centers on the idea that Israel’s exile in Assyria is like a return to Egypt (Hos 8:13; 11:5). The background to this typology is the reality of the original exodus from Egypt (Hos 11:1; 12:9, 13). The punishment of exile, involving expulsion from the promised land, can be thought of, therefore, as being a kind of reversal of the exodus (Hos 9:3; 12:9).

Like Adam, who was brought from the wilderness into the garden (Gen 2:5–8), and then later expelled from the garden in order to return to the wilderness on account of his covenant rebellion (Gen 3:17–18, 23–24), Israel, having passed through the wilderness on the way to the promised land (Hos 13:5), would likewise leave the Holy Land to return to the wilderness on account of her covenant rebellion (Hos 2:3, 14).

But if the exile to Assyria constituted a reversal of the exodus, then God’s commitment to ultimately bring blessing upon Israel means that Israel’s future restoration can be pictured as constituting a new or second exodus (Hos 11:11). At this time of future restoration, Israel would sing like she had done previously in her youth when first rescued from Egypt (Hos 2:15; compare with Exod 15:1–21). This new exodus would mark the end of Israel’s exile from the presence of the Lord.

The Theme of Love in the Book of Hosea

The concept of love is an important theme in the book of Hosea. One of Israel’s problems was that her love had been misdirected. Instead of keeping her covenant vow of exclusive love towards her “first husband, ”Yahweh, the one true God (Hos 2:7), Israel in the pre-exilic period turned to other gods and nations in a misguided effort to ensure her survival. Instead of trusting in Yahweh and his provision and protection, Israel decided to act like a prostitute, chasing after lovers whom she mistakenly thought would provide her with bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink (Hos 2:5). She chased after her lovers, but forgot the Lord (Hos 2:13). Her love for Yahweh was as fleeting as morning mist and dew (Hos 6:4). She loved the Baals and other idols instead of Yahweh (Hos 2:8, 13; 9:10; 11:2; 13:1). This betrayal would prove to be counterproductive with God punishing Israel for her lewdness, her former lovers (Egypt and Assyria—see Hos 5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 12:1; 14:3) impotent to save her (Hos 2:10).

Contrasting with Israel’s unfaithfulness stands Yahweh’s great love for his people. At least three different metaphors are used in the book of Hosea to illustrate God’s love for Israel.

Firstly, God’s covenant relationship with Israel is like a marriage, and despite Israel’s unfaithfulness, God still loved Israel. Yahweh’s plan was to woo Israel back after the exile, and betroth her again to himself (Hos 2:15, 19–20). It is an amazing form of love that could forgive such great unfaithfulness on the part of Israel, the wayward wife of Yahweh. In large part, the message of the book of Hosea is that “Yahweh loves the people of Israel, even though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins” (Hos 3:1). Indeed, this husband and wife relationship between Yahweh and Israel was dramatized through Hosea’s marriage and remarriage to Gomer (Hos 1:2–3; 3:1–3). Hosea’s rocky relationship with Gomer was a dramatized prophecy of the breakdown of the marriage between God and Israel as well as their future reconciliation (Hos 2:19–20; 14:4). At the time of reconciliation, the name of Baal (which means master or husband) would no longer be used of God, given its negative association with Baal the idol, but solely the term אישׁי my husband (Hos 2:16–17).

The second major metaphor of God’s love in the book of Hosea is the touching metaphor of a father’s love for his son in Hos 11:1–3. God pictures himself as a father who called his child, who taught him how to walk, who cuddled and healed his son when he was sick. Yet “the more that [God] called out to [Israel], the more [he] turned away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning offerings to idols.”

The third major metaphor of love in the book of Hosea is that of a farmer who takes care of his domestic animals. God pictures himself as a gentle farmer who leads his treasured animals, eases their yolk, and feeds them lovingly (Hos 11:4). God’s heart was deeply pained to see his people destroyed in judgment, and his compassion would spare Israel from total destruction (11:8–9).

The Folly of Suretyship according to Proverbs 6:1–5

An important part of being wise, according to the Old Testament, is knowing what constitutes foolishness and avoiding such behavior. In Prov 6:1–19, Solomon identifies ten different acts of folly, the first of which is the folly of going surety for others. Standing as surety or going guarantor means promising to take on the debt of someone else if that person defaults on the debt on question. A variation of this is putting up a certain amount of one’s assets as security in order for someone else to get a loan.

From the perspective of the wisdom literature in the Old Testament, going guarantor for someone else is not a good idea. Standing surety for someone else is putting yourself in a trap (Prov 6:1–2). If the other person defaults on their debt repayments, then you are stuck with it, like a gazelle caught by a hunter, or like a bird caught in a trap (Prov 6:5).

Solomon’s teaching here is consistent with what we see elsewhere in the Bible. In Prov 22:26–27, in the sayings of the wise, it says: “Do not be someone who strikes hands in pledge or goes surety for debts; if you lack the means to pay, why should your very bed be snatched from under you?” Similar teaching about avoiding going surety for someone else is found in Prov 11:15; 17:18.

From the biblical perspective, being in debt is generally a bad situation to be in, so why would you want to take on the debt of someone else? There is an old Assyrian proverb which says: “I have hauled sand; I have carried salt; but nothing is heavier than debt” (see Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient East [3rd ed.; Mahwah: Paulist, 2006], 306). Debt is something to avoid if at all possible.

For those who have fallen into the trap of going guarantor for someone else, Solomon says that such a person should not sleep until he has liberated himself from standing as surety (Prov 6:4–5). In Prov 6:3, Solomon advocates grovelling forcefully with the creditor in order to negotiate a release from such an obligation.

True Worship according to Paul in Romans 12:1

How many people when they think of Christianity think that being a Christian is a matter of sitting in church on Sunday, singing a few hymns, and putting money in the offering bag? Is that all there is to Christianity?

Christianity is not about sitting in church. It is about transformation! Paul understood that God’s plan of salvation, which encompasses Jews as well as Gentiles, has implications for how we live. Being a Christian involves following God’s way of life.

Paul writes in Rom 12:1 about this transformed way of life in Christ in terms of believers presenting their bodies as living sacrifices to God. In ancient Israel, worship at the temple involved bringing sacrifices to God. These were offered up as symbols of a person’s dedication to God. These sacrifices usually consisted of animals that were dedicated to God by being killed. In being killed, they were being removed from ordinary human use, and handed over to God for his use. Paul indicates that Christians should view themselves as sacrifices, but we are called to be a living sacrifice, not a dead sacrifice. The idea here is not that we serve God by literally dying for him like an Old Testament sacrifice, but that we serve God as we live in our bodies in the here and now. Every day of our life is supposed to be dedicated to God.

Paul describes the kind of sacrifice that we are to be in terms of being holy and pleasing to God. The concept of holiness in Greek has connotations of that which inspires religious awe or fear, or that which is fitting or appropriate in a sacred context. But underlying this Greek word is the use of the word קדוש in the Hebrew Bible. קדוש expresses the idea of separation from common use in order to be consecrated to God. Being holy means that we are to give ourselves over to God for his service. Being a living sacrifice that is holy and pleasing to God means that we are to be dedicated in our service to God in a way that is appropriate in terms of what God desires.

Paul says that dedicating ourselves as a living sacrifice constitutes our spiritual worship. The word translated as spiritual in the NIV usually means rational or reasonable. The word translated as worship means service, and has connotations of the service that the Levitical priests offered to God in the tabernacle/temple. What then is this rational worship? It involves using our thoughts and minds to direct our bodies in the service of God. Paul speaks about the need for a mind-transformation in Rom 12:2, so he probably wants us to understand that being a living sacrifice for God as we engage our minds for him in our daily lives is the kind of worship that we are to show. This service is mind-full, always mindful of God and what pleases him. This is the kind of worship that God desires, and it contrasts with the physical worship of God that took place in the temple in Jerusalem. For Paul, therefore, Christian worship is basically a new way of life based on a new way of thinking.

The motivation for us in offering ourselves in this kind of worship is particularly God’s compassion that has been shown to us in his plan of salvation. All human beings (apart from Christ) have sinned, but God has chosen to be compassionate. The meaning of the word translated as mercy in the NIV indicates that God has identified with our pain or grief. As the word compassion implies, God has felt our feelings. God has felt our passions of pain or grief, and has been moved to do something to help us. Seeing us tormented on the pathway of death, God sent Jesus into the world to rescue us; and a key part of that rescue involves us being set upon the way of life, no longer serving sin but serving God instead. God does not have to save anyone, but he has! And in response to his mercy, it behooves his people to respond to his compassion by offering themselves in grateful service to him.

Giving God the First Part of Our Income

One of the characteristics of a wise person, according to Solomon in Prov 3:9, is prioritizing the use of one’s resources for God: “Honor Yahweh from your wealth, from the first part of all your produce.”

The question for Christians in the light of this is: how often do we have God at number one on our shopping list? Most of us spend money firstly on the things that we need to spend money on; and if we have any money left over, then this is either used on purchasing discretionary items or saved. If you have a family, there is always the weekly shopping to do. Then there is the phone bill, the broadband bill, the electricity bill, the water bill, and petrol for the car. If you do not have a family or are still living at home, then you tend to spend your money on yourself … what clothes you might like or the latest gadget you want to buy. Some of us may currently be saving up money in the hope of buying a house one day, or maybe your eye is on going overseas for a holiday. The problem is that we plan all of our own expenditure before being concerned about how we can promote God’s work in the world. We spend money during the week, and sometimes it is only when Sunday arrives that we think about giving a little bit back to God.

But Solomon says the first part of our produce or income should be given over to God. The teaching in this verse reflects the laws of Exod 23:19; 34:26; Num 18:12; Deut 18:4, which state that “the first part of the firstfruits of the ground” should be brought to the Lord in the temple. How many of us when we receive a pay cheque, or when our wages are paid into our account, think straight away about we can use some of that money for God and his purposes? If you were suddenly to receive a cheque for $100,000, what thought would come to your mind? Great, now I can pay off my mortgage faster! Or great, now I can go overseas on holiday for three months! Or great, now I can buy a new car, and still have some left over! Instead, the proper response should be something like: Wow, God has given me these tremendous financial resources; how can I use some of this for him by promoting the work of his church or through caring for those in need? What we immediately think in our heads as we receive the money in our hands shows up our priorities. The wise person has contributing to God’s work as a priority. God should be first on our list of expenditure.

When giving to the church or to Christian causes, we should not think that this is lost money. Obviously to give to the church to the point that we cannot provide for ourselves or our family is not correct, but having said that God actually tells us that having his expenditure at the top of our list is the way to wealth. Proverbs 3:10 teaches that the generosity that we show towards God is multiplied back to us as God generously responds. Storehouses filled with abundance, wine vats bursting with new wine … all of this is a picture of God’s blessing (both physical and spiritual) upon those who generously contribute to God’s plan for the extension of his kingdom in the world.

Torah Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs

I have argued previously that the concept of wisdom in the Old Testament is torah-centric, and that Jesus’ definition of wisdom in Matt 7:24 also functions as a neat summary of the Old Testament definition of human wisdom, namely, that being wise involves hearing and doing the word of God (see “The Old Testament Concept of Wisdom” for further details).

This view is supported by the book of Proverbs, where wisdom is closely linked with torah. For example, Prov 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18 speak about hearing, keeping, or forsaking the law. The law in question at this point ought to be understood in the original context as being the law of Moses. This conclusion is reached on the basis of the fact that Prov 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18 are proverbs of Solomon (see Prov 25:1), and that Solomon’s wisdom is strongly connected in the historical narrative of the Bible with the law of Moses (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:3; 3:3, 14; see also 1 Kgs 8:25, 58, 61; 2 Chr 7:17–20). In fact, from the point of view of the Mosaic covenant, keeping the Mosaic law was Israel’s wisdom (Deut 4:6). The law of Moses was able to make wise the simple (Ps 19:7; 119:130). Solomon also clearly knew of the Mosaic covenant and called upon Israel to be committed to this covenant (1 Kgs 8:56–61).

Given the close connection in the Old Testament between wisdom and the law of Moses, and given that the language of Prov 1–9 recalls the language of the exhortatory passages of Deuteronomy, the voice of the father in chapters 1–9 is best understood as an example of generalized sophistic covenant instruction. Solomon’s instruction is generalized and sophistic in the sense that instead of being an Israelite father passing on the laws of and the historical rationale behind the covenant to his son (such as we see, for example, in Deut 6:6–9, 20–25), Solomon appears as the “father” of the nation passing down a form of covenant instruction, expressed in the conceptual categories of the wisdom tradition (where wisdom and understanding obtained by means of listening to and accepting divine instruction leads to life) to all his subjects.

The use of the word torah (תורה) thirteen times in the book of Proverbs (in Prov 1:8; 3:1; 4:2; 6:20, 23; 7:2; 13:14; 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18; 31:26), where it is usually translated as teaching, also serves to make clear the connection between wisdom and torah. The word תורה is derived from the Hebrew root which denotes instruction or direction. There are also proverbs that mention obedience to “the word” or “the commandments,” or the need for such to be received into the heart (e.g., Prov 2:1; 3:1; 13:13; 16:20; 19:16). All of this suggests that there is a close connection between the concept of wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the torah of Moses. As taught elsewhere in the Old Testament, wisdom is, in effect, the outworking of divine law in the heart.

A Summary of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs

Wisdom is the major theme in the book of Proverbs. The wisdom taught in Proverbs is not some kind of general human knowledge gained by way of human contemplation and reflection on the facts of life, but knowledge concerning God and his way that is ultimately communicated to humanity by God himself through torah.

The book of Proverbs teaches that God used wisdom in creating the world (Prov 3:19–20). The idea of the seven pillars and the the high places of the town in Prov 9:1, 3, 14 relates Wisdom and Folly to the concept of temple. Wisdom is closely associated with sanctuary building in the Old Testament (see Exod 31:2; 35:30–36:1; 2 Chr 2:13). An important theological connection exists between God’s wisdom in building the earth as a sanctuary (where God and humanity relate together) and the God-given wisdom of people like Bezalel and Solomon, who were used by God to build the tabernacle/temple.

Because God is the source of wisdom, all wisdom comes as a gift from him (Prov 2:6). Wisdom is of great value (Prov 4:7; 8:10–11; 16:16). Wisdom is readily available (Prov 1:20–21; 8:1–5); but we need to get hold of, to love, and to never forsake wisdom (Prov 4:5, 7). We need to pay attention to it (Prov 5:1), to listen to the voice of wisdom (Prov 2:2; 8:6), to search for wisdom like searching for hidden treasure (Prov 2:4). The person who possesses wisdom is blessed (Prov 3:13; 8:32–34). Wisdom provides protection (Prov 4:6), honor (Prov 4:8), splendor (Prov 4:9), and life (Prov 8:35; 9:6).

The Identity of the “We” Who Speak and Testify in John 3:11

In John 3:11 Jesus is reported as saying to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have beheld, yet you do not receive our testimony.” The main question in this verse is: to whom do the pronouns we and our refer?

The options suggested are that the pronouns we and our refer either to Jesus and his disciples, to the Trinity, to Jesus via a plural of majesty, or to Jesus and the Old Testament prophets (including John the Baptist).

Out of all of these options, it makes more sense in the context to take the pronouns we and our as referring to Jesus and the Old Testament prophets. Jesus links the concepts of speaking and testifying with knowing and beholding or seeing. In Jewish thinking, it is supremely the prophets who pass on what has been revealed to them. The prophets were people who heard or saw the mysteries of God, and passed such truths on to God’s people. The fact that John the Baptist has previously appeared speaking and testifying (see John 1:6–9, 19, 29–33, especially 1:34) helps to confirm this linkage.

The pronoun you in the final clause of this verse is in the plural. This pronoun refers, therefore, not just to Nicodemus, but to the Jewish leadership viewed as a whole. Overall, the meaning of this verse is that the Jewish people viewed as a whole did not receive the testimony of the prophets. The rejection of the prophetic word by old covenant Israel was a problem that Israel had experienced throughout her history, but it reached its climax with the Jewish rejection of the testimony of Jesus the Messiah.

“The Wind Blows Where It Wills”: The Meaning of Jesus’ Teaching in John 3:8

What did Jesus mean when he said: “The wind blows where it wills. You hear its sound, but do not know where it is coming from and where it is going. Thus is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8)?

To understand the meaning of Jesus’ teaching in this verse, we need first of all to recognize that there is a play on the double sense of the noun πνεῦμα in this verse. πνεῦμα can be translated as wind or spirit. John is deliberately playing on the dual sense of πνεῦμα as wind or spirit, drawing an analogy between the wind and the Holy Spirit. Wind is considered in the Bible to be a phenomenon that, like the waves of the sea, is beyond the control of human beings (e.g., Job 38:24; Ps 107:25; Prov 30:4). Just as the wind blows wherever God wills, so also God’s Spirit blows wherever God wills. That is to say, God’s Spirit works in a sovereign way.

Just as people cannot see the wind but can hear the sound of the wind blowing, so also the Spirit of God cannot physically be seen with human eyes but we can perceive his effects on the objects which he touches. The concept of the sound of the wind as an image of the movement of the Spirit finds an echo in the events of the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, when the sound of a mighty rushing wind from heaven was heard as the Spirit came down upon the early church (Acts 2:2). The movement of God’s Spirit cannot be predicted or controlled by human beings, but we can perceive his effects as people’s lives are transformed by the power of God’s Spirit.

The point of Jesus’ analogy between the wind and the Spirit is stated in the final clause of the verse: “Thus is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The point of the wind/spirit analogy is that the beneficiaries of rebirth by the Holy Spirit are not determined by human beings. In the context of the concern on the Gospel of John with the ethnically universal nature of salvation provided through Jesus, and given that Jesus was currently directing this teaching to Nicodemus, a representative of the teachers of Israel (John 3:9–10), the implication of Jesus’ analogy in this verse is that it is not right for Jews to think that the saving work of the Spirit is solely limited to Israel.

Although covenant membership is inherited according to physical descent—a principle which applies under the new covenant as well as the old (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 7:14)—the work of the Spirit during the new covenant age exhibits a greater scope compared to the situation under the old covenant. Under the old covenant, the work of God’s Spirit was limited to operate primarily within the boundary of covenant membership in Israel. But under the new covenant, God’s Spirit operates not just within Israel, but extensively beyond the borders of Israel. Furthermore, even within the constraint of covenant membership, it is not the case that everyone in covenant with God is a recipient of the saving work of the Spirit. The determining factor for salvation under both the old and the new covenants is not formal covenant membership but whether or not a person has experienced the work of God’s Spirit writing God’s word upon one’s heart. Those who have God’s law written in the heart are those who are right with God and who therefore experience salvation (e.g., Ps 37:29; Isa 51:7; Rom 2:28–29).

Regeneration by the Spirit, therefore, remains a sovereign act of God. God has mercy on whomever he wills, the implication being, that he has mercy on “everyone,” which is to say, on Gentile as well as Jew. This is the sense in which the Spirit blows where he wills.

The Parable of the Sower and the Danger of Temporary Faith

Without denying the truth of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., that the elect will persevere in faith and definitely be saved), it is important for Christians to know that it is possible for faith to be temporary. This is a truth that Jesus taught in the parable of the sower in Matt 13:1–9, 18–23 (see also Mark 4:1–9, 13–20; Luke 8:4–8, 11–15).

A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Satan can snatch the word of God from people’s hearts before it has time to take root (Matt 13:4, 19).

Some seed fell on rocky places, where there was not much soil. The seed sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. The seed sown among the rocky soil symbolizes those who hear God’s word and who receive it joyfully, but when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away, because the word of God has not been received deeply into their hearts (Matt 13:5–6, 20–21).

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. The seed sown among thorns symbolizes those who hear God’s word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth end up strangling the life out of them, making them unfruitful (Matt 13:7, 22).

But some seed fell on good soil, and it grew up to produce a crop, a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown (Matt 13:8).

Out of these four different types of soil, it was only the good soil that allowed the seed to produce a positive harvest. This represents the person who hears and understands the word of God (Matt 13:23).

In three out of the four soils mentioned by Jesus there was some kind of growth, some kind of response to God’s word. In three out of the four soils the seed germinated and was alive for a certain period of time. But only in one of these three situations was there enduring life and growth to maturity that resulted in the positive outcome of fruitfulness.

Because faith can be temporary, encouraging his disciples to persevere in the faith was an important part of Jesus’ ministry.

Understanding the Flesh versus Spirit Distinction in John 3:6

The content of John 3:6, where Jesus says “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” is supposed to be understood in the context of Jesus explaining further to Nicodemus the concept of Spiritual rebirth, which Nicodemus had misunderstood as if Jesus were talking to him about a literal rebirth. Being born again physically will not help anyone. Even if being born again could literally happen, a person born again could live another lifetime, but in the end would still have to die, or else endure a cycle of multiple deaths and rebirths. The reality of the death of what is flesh is implied in Jesus’ statement that what is born of the flesh is flesh. Human beings born into the world have no hope of eternal life unless they have God’s Spirit in their hearts; and since the fall, ordinary human nature is devoid of God’s Spirit.

The important thing for true human existence, therefore, is whether or not a person “is spirit” in the sense of possessing the Spirit. The determining factor for salvation is having God’s Spirit, for “the Spirit gives life” (John 6:63; see also Ezek 37:14; 2 Cor 3:6). A person who is born physically will die, but one who is born of the Spirit is spirit in the sense that he or she cannot die (the second death), and so will live forever (John 1:13; Rom 8:6).

Therefore, the flesh versus spirit distinction in John 3:6 (as generally throughout Scripture where a flesh versus spirit framework is applied to human beings) is not to be understood in terms of Greek philosophical dualism, where flesh and spirit indicate the corporeal and incorporeal realms of existence respectively. The Bible can talk of human beings as being either spirits or spiritual wherever human nature is energised in a salvific way by God’s Spirit (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:44–45; see also Rom 8:9). The biblical presentation of flesh versus spirit can be summarized as follows:

human(ity) - God’s Spirit = flesh 

human + God’s Spirit = spirit

Jesus’ point is that regeneration by God’s Spirit is what transforms a person from flesh to spirit. God’s Spirit transforms a person destined to die into one who can live forever in the presence and blessing of God.

The Meaning of the Phrase ‘Born of Water and Spirit’ in John 3:5

Jesus’ statement in John 3:5—“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!”—is an amplification of Jesus’ prior statement to Nicodemus in 3:3 concerning the condition for seeing the kingdom of God. The equivalent of being born again or being born from above is literally being born of water and spirit. In the context of John 3:6, 8, where Jesus is arguably talking about the Holy Spirit, it makes sense to translate the phrase born of water and spirit (γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος) in John 3:5 as born of water and the Spirit, where Spirit indicates the Holy Spirit.

To be born of water and the Spirit means, therefore, to experience Spiritual regeneration, which ultimately is the work of God. This is the primary idea in John 3:5, but a question remains concerning to extent to which the term water in John 3:5 indicates water baptism. In regard to this issue, the structure of the phrase of water and spirit, where two co-ordinate nouns are governed by a single preposition (i.e., ἐξ), suggests a close connection between water and Spirit. Since Gentile converts to Judaism were considered to become like newborn children through proselyte baptism (which was performed in order to cleanse them from their Gentile impurity), it is quite likely that the word water would have conveyed the idea of baptism, or at least some kind of ceremonial washing, to a Jewish audience, including Nicodemus. Elsewhere in John’s writings where the concepts of spirit and water are placed in close proximity, namely, in 1 John 5:8, spirit refers to the Holy Spirit, and water to Jesus’ baptism.

Jesus’ mention of water and spirit is also to be understood (as it most likely would have been in a Jewish context) in the light of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant age. The Old Testament prophets foresaw a time when God would work through his Spirit to bring Israel back to himself in covenant obedience (see Deut 30:6; Jer 31:31–33; Ezek 36:24–27). In particular, Ezekiel 36:24–27 pictures the future work of the Spirit as being like water sprinkled upon Israel to cleanse her from her uncleanness. Therefore, understanding the phrase born of water and spirit in John 3:5, in conjunction with the idea of the kingdom of God, on Jesus’ lips, in a Jewish context, leads us to take the phrase born of water and spirit to be referring to conversion or baptism by the Holy Spirit.

But it should be noted at this point that baptism in the Holy Spirit was viewed by the early church as ordinarily taking place at the point of Christian (water) baptism (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5), following the model of Jesus’ baptism, in which there was a conjunction of water and the Spirit (Luke 3:21–22). Exceptions to the rule of the conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit in baptism only happened at special stages in God’s plan of salvation, such as at Pentecost (Acts 1:15), at the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14–18), and at the conversion of the first Gentiles (Acts 10:24–48), matching the pattern of the evangelistic mandate in Acts 1:8, where the gospel was to be preached in Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (i.e., to the Gentiles). Apart from these exceptions, at least as far as adult converts were concerned, baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit were considered in the early church as taking place together. This led to the view in the early church that the eschatological gift of the Spirit was received through faith at the time of conversion, i.e., at the point of Christian baptism.

It is most likely, therefore, that John’s audience, both Christian and non-Christian, would have understood the phrase of water and spirit in connection with Christian baptism, which marked the point of conversion to Christianity. Conversion to Christianity is the necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God, where entering the kingdom of God is itself a metaphor for coming into the possession of salvation, which involves having the right to live in the presence of God and to experience his blessing. All in all, the significance of Jesus’ teaching in John 3:5 is that Christian conversion, which formally takes place at Christian baptism, which marks the official reception of the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit on the part of the baptizand, is necessary in order for individuals to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.

Born Again or Born from Above? The Concept of Spiritual Rebirth in John 3:3

When Nicodemus came by night to visit Jesus, he had only just offered his greetings to Jesus when Jesus spoke to him about the condition for salvation in the kingdom of God. Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). As a pious Jew, Nicodemus would have been greatly interested in this issue; but Jesus’ raising of this topic so early in his conversation with Nicodemus definitely highlights the importance of it in Jesus’ thinking.

Unpacking the meaning of Jesus’ statement, the expression truly, truly, I say to you occurs 25 times in John’s Gospel, where it usually introduces sayings of Jesus of particular significance. The use of this expression by Jesus also highlights the fact that Jesus has come into the world to speak the truth (e.g., John 8:40, 45–46; 14:6; 17:17; 18:37).

The word ἄνωθεν, which is often translated as again as in the phrase born again also means from above. In a Jewish context it would be most natural to take ἄνωθεν as being a Jewish circumlocution for from heaven or ultimately from God. It is clear from Nicodemus’s response in John 3:4, however, that ἄνωθεν could also mean again, and this is primarily how Nicodemus understood it. As far as Jesus’ use of ἄνωθεν is concerned, it is likely that Jesus used the word in John 3:3 with deliberate ambiguity but at the same time with the sense of from above primarily in mind. This is apparent from the substitution of the expression by water and spirit for ἄνωθεν in Jesus’ explication of his statement in John 3:3 in John 3:5. The concept of being born again in a spiritual sense should have been familiar to Nicodemus as a reference to conversion, given that Jewish rabbis spoke about Gentile conversion to Judaism as the beginning of a new life.

The expression to see the kingdom of God simply means to experience, to be a part of, the kingdom of God. It is a synonymous concept with entering the kingdom of God (see John 3:5). New birth, a spiritual rebirth engineered from above, is the condition of salvation. This teaching could have been rather controversial for Nicodemus, had he understood Jesus’ intended meaning, because the implication of Jesus’ teaching was that more is needed for the Jews to be right with God than adherence to the law of Moses. A new birth, connected with faith in Jesus, is what is needed in order to experience salvation in the kingdom of God.

In terms of the wider context of the Jewish-Christian polemics relevant to John’s readership—where Christian Jews were facing opposition from many non-Christian Jews—Jesus’ teaching would clearly have been quite controversial. In effect, Jesus was stating that Jews need to be converted out of Judaism (symbolized in its purest form in Jesus’ day by Pharisaism, of which Nicodemus was an adherent) to Christianity, which was distinguished from traditional Judaism by the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Meaning of Jesus Not Entrusting Himself in John 2:24

Most English translations of John 2:24 do not make much sense to the average reader. Many Jews, who saw the miracles that Jesus had been performing, “believed in his name”; but Jesus either “did not commit himself” (KJV), “did not trust himself” (ASV), “did not entrust himself” (ESV), or “would not entrust himself” (NIV) to these new believers. But what does it mean that Jesus did not commit or entrust himself to others?

It is good that many people believed in Jesus as a result of the miraculous signs that he had performed. Christians know that “there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10), yet Jesus in John 2:24 does not seem to have responded to the conversion of a large number of people with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The key to making sense of Jesus’ response here is to note that the word translated as commit or entrust in John 2:24 is from the Greek verb πιστεύω, the same word that is often translated as believe. In fact, the verb πιστεύω occurs in the previous verse: “many believed [ἐπίστευσαν] in his name.” The repetition of πιστεύω in adjacent verses suggests that there is a kind of play on the word πιστεύω at this point. Many believed in Jesus, but Jesus did not believe in them! These people claimed to be followers of Jesus, but Jesus was not confident in them, and could not confide himself in them.

But why did Jesus not believe in these new converts? A large number of people being converted and coming to faith is surely a time for celebration … but only if such faith is a true faith that endures to the end. Jesus knew, however, that he would end up being rejected by the majority of the Jewish people of his day. He was cognizant of the fact that many of the people who believed in him at the start of his public ministry would end up abandoning him. Jesus knew the fickleness of people’s faith in him.

Further explanation is given in John 2:25. Jesus did not need anyone to tell him what human beings are like, because he himself knows what we are like on the inside. Jesus was well aware of the weakness of human nature, and just how fickle human commitment can be. Jesus knew that in the end he would be rejected by the majority of the Jewish nation, just as God had been rejected by the majority of Israel during the time of the Old Testament, and just as God had been rejected by Adam and the human race more generally throughout the centuries beforehand.

The Jewish rejection of the Messiah is a one of the key themes of John’s Gospel. Many Jews believed in Jesus, but only for a time. Jesus had crowds of people following him around the countryside. This reached fever pitch particularly after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Free food! Exciting preacher! Who wouldn’t want to be one of his disciples?

But when Jesus started teaching the people things that they could not readily accept, or when opposition or persecution arose, many of these believers ended up abandoning him (see John 6:60, 66). We are also told in John’s Gospel that there were many in the Jewish leadership at the time who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but sadly they were not prepared to confess this belief out of fear of being ostracized from Jewish society (John 12:42).

The Christian confession of faith that “Jesus is the Christ” is a necessary cause for celebration, but true Christian faith is more than just a momentary conversion experience. The question is how genuine such faith is, and whether or not it will endure till the end.

You say that you believe in Jesus, but does Jesus believe in you?

.

What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus’ Name?

The expression to believe in [Jesus’] name occurs five times in the New Testament, all in the Johannine literature. The expression πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ to believe in his name occurs in John 1:12; 2:23; πιστεύω τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ’Iησοῦ Xριστοῦ to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ in 1 John 3:23; πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the Son of God in 1 John 5:13; and πιστεύω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ to believe in the name of the unique Son of God in John 3:18. But what does it mean to believe in Jesus’ name?

When John advocates believing in the name of Jesus, it is handy to substitute the word title for name. To believe in Jesus’ name is to acknowledge Jesus’ title, to acknowledge who Jesus really is, and in particular, to acknowledge who Jesus claimed to be, i.e., to accept the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one, the Son of God, the divinely-chosen divine King of salvation.

For John, Jesus’ name or title is twofold. Firstly, Jesus is the Christ; and secondly, Jesus is the Son of God (see John 20:31). These terms are virtual synonyms in John’s usage, although the term the Son of God also implies (for John) that Jesus is divine. This twofold understanding of Jesus’ name can be seen from the terms used by John in connection with the idea of Jesus’ name. In John 1:12, believing in Jesus’ name is paralleled with receiving him. In John 2:23, many people believe in Jesus’ name after seeing the many signs that Jesus performed. The signs presumably convinced them that Jesus was the Christ. In 1 John 3:23, the terms Christ and [God’s] Son are used. In John 3:18 and 1 John 5:13, the term the Son of God is used.

Thus, to believe in Jesus’ name is to confess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.

Jesus Is the Eschatological Temple

Jesus’ response in John 2:19 to the Jewish religious authorities who challenged him after he had cleared the temple continues the theme in John 1–2 of Jesus being the eschatological temple. Jesus’ clearing of the temple was a provocative act that challenged the authority of the temple authorities. They responded by asking Jesus on what authority he had been acting in the way that he had: “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” (John 2:18).

Jesus answered his opponents by pointing to his resurrection: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Jesus’ sign was the sign of the destruction of “this temple” and the rebuilding of it in the space of three days.

The narrator explains in John 2:21 that the phrase this temple was used by Jesus to refer to the “temple” of his body. But at the time, with Jesus still situated in the Jewish temple precincts, Jesus’ words were deliberately ambiguous. John 2:22 indicates that the true meaning of Jesus’ words at this point only became clear with hindsight after the resurrection.

At the time, however, Jesus’ opponents did not understand that Jesus was referring to the “temple” of his own body. Given this lack of insight, it is understandable that the authorities incredulously said to him: “This temple was built over forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” (John 2:20). Jesus’ opponents naturally thought that he had been talking about the physical temple. Starting around the year 20–19 B.C., it had taken Herod 46 years to renovate the temple. But Jesus had in mind the destruction of the temple of his body, and its rebuilding in the space of three days. This would be the sign of his authority to reform the worship of God as part of his ministry.

So Jesus was pointing to his resurrection as being proof (yet in the future) of his authority. But at the same time, by picturing his body in the figure of a temple, Jesus was hinting at the fact that he himself is the fulfillment of the temple theme of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, the physical temple was a key symbol of God’s presence with his people. God had fellowship with his people at the temple. It was there at the temple that the people’s sins could be forgiven, and the way opened up for them to come into the presence of God. But because of Israel’s disobedience, the first temple (the temple of Solomon) was destroyed. After the Babylonian exile, the temple was rebuilt, but the glory of God never returned to the temple. The second temple was like a shell, waiting for the return of God’s glory. It is significant, therefore, that John’s Gospel portrays Jesus as being the revelation of God’s glory to Israel (see John 1:14). The coming of Jesus constitutes the return of God’s glory to the temple. In addition, the fact that Jesus could talk about his resurrection in terms of the rebuilding of “this temple” suggests that Jesus viewed himself as being the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament theme of temple.

John’s Gospel forcefully states the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is the eschatological temple. The building of the eschatological temple of Ezek 40–48, which is a metaphorical picture of the eternal state, would be achieved through the resurrection of Jesus. This is consistent with the view of the Apostle Paul that (through his resurrection) Jesus was the cornerstone of the “holy temple in the Lord … the dwelling place of God in the Spirit,” of which the saints form the ediface, built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20–22). Jesus’ death on the cross represents the destruction of the old symbolic temple, and his resurrection to life represents the creation of the new, true temple. In the light of this temple-building function of resurrection, it makes sense that Jesus would drive people out of the old temple as a sign that, through his death and resurrection, a new temple was about to be built in order to bring about spiritual reformation for the sake of the establishment of the proper worship of God.

The Gospel of John presents Jesus as being the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament tabernacle/temple theme. Jesus is the eschatological temple through whom full atonement is made for human sin, allowing humanity (as they follow Jesus) to enter into the presence of God and live.

Jesus: Stairway to Heaven; House of God

Jesus’ words to Nathanael in John 1:51 build on the temple theme introduced in John 1:14 (see “The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14” and “Beholding the Glory of the Son in John 1:14”). In John 1:51, Jesus is recorded as saying to Nathanael, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Read in the light of Jesus’ words to Nathanael in John 1:50, the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man is one of the “greater things” that Jesus’ disciples would see.

Although Jesus’ comment in John 1:51 is recorded by the narrator as being directed to Nathaniel, the pronoun you is in the plural. This comment of Jesus, therefore, also applied to the other disciples of Jesus.

The idea of the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man interacts with the description of the content of Jacob’s dream in Gen 28:12. In his dream, Jacob saw a stairway joining earth and heaven; “and the angels of God ascending and descending upon it.” The language used by Jesus in John 1:51 in speaking of the angels ascending and descending follows the wording of the LXX very closely with the exception of syntactical changes made out of grammatical necessity. The LXX reads καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβαινον καὶ κατέβαινον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς and the angels of God were ascending and descending upon it, whereas Jesus mentions τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.

The strong similarity of language at this point parallels it, i.e., the stairway, with the Son of Man. The implication of this parallelism is that Jesus is the climax (κλίμαξ stairway, ladder). Jesus is the one who links earth to heaven. Jesus has opened up the way into heaven, enabling human beings to come into the presence of God.

From a Hebrew perspective, the term the Son of Man emphasizes Jesus’ humanity; but at the same time, given the biblical use of the the term, it also speaks of Jesus’ importance. This is due to the fact that the term the Son of Man, as used by Jesus, was derived from the prophecy of Dan 7:13–14, where “one like a son of man [comes] to the Ancient of Days” to receive “dominion” over an everlasting kingdom. Jesus viewed himself as being the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the exalted son of man of Dan 7. Putting the concepts of stairway and Son of Man together, the suggestion is that Jesus, who would later ascend into heaven to become the God-appointed King of the world, is the person who links earth to heaven.

A further detail from Gen 28 relevant to understanding the teaching of John 1:51 is Jacob’s naming of the place where he had been sleeping Bethel. The word Bethel means the house of God. Therefore, by identifying himself as the one upon whom the angels ascended and descended, Jesus was linking the name Bethel to himself. Jesus was effectively presenting himself as being the ultimate Bethel. This is consistent with the idea of the Logos tabernacling among us in John 1:14.

Therefore, according to John, Jesus is both the stairway to heaven and the house of God. Jesus is the true eschatological temple, the one through whom God and humanity are reconciled and have fellowship together.

Beholding the Glory of the Son in John 1:14

The third clause in John 1:14 (“and we have beheld his glory”) builds on the temple theme introduced in the second clause of the same verse (for a discussion of the temple theme in the second clause of John 1:14, see “The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14”). The verb translated as beheld or saw usually implies looking attentively upon or gazing at something. The incarnate Logos was an awesome sight to behold. He was an object worthy of contemplation. The first disciples understood that the Logos incarnate is the ultimate revelation of God’s glory.

The noun δόξα, usually translated here as glory, typically denotes the splendor of a person’s external appearance; but John uses δόξα at this point to capture the majesty of Christ’s intrinsic divinity. The glory of the Logos incarnate is “the glory as of the only one from the Father.” The glory revealed in Jesus is the glory of the unique Son of God.

This mention of the concept of glory in the third clause immediately following the previous clause in which the idea of a tent or tabernacle has already been raised adds a further association in the verse with the theme of temple. In the Old Testament, God’s glory is closely associated with the idea of the tabernacle and the temple. The ideas of glory and tent coincide in Exod 40:34–35; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:6. God’s glory frequently settled over the tabernacle in order that the tabernacle might be filled with God’s glory. God’s glory among Israel symbolized God’s presence with his people.

After the temple was built by Solomon, the conceptual connection between tabernacle and glory naturally broadened to include the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:11; 2 Chr 5:14; 7:1–3). The Babylonian exile, however, represented a time when God’s protective glory withdrew from the temple. As the book of Ezekiel is concerned to show, the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem presupposed that God’s glory had left the temple. This was primarily as a result of the rampant idolatry that took place in Israel. This point is argued strongly in Ezek 8, which functions as an awful case study into Israel’s idolatry at the time. Indeed, in the book of Ezekiel, the glory of God is seen slowly withdrawing from the temple to take up position over the Mount of Olives (see Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23) until the time of judgment against Israel had been fulfilled. The book of Ezekiel pictures that the glory of God would eventually return to his people (Ezek 43:2, 4–5), and be revealed to the nations (Ezek 39:21).

In the light of these prophecies of Ezekiel, it is very significant that the Old Testament does not record that the glory of God returned to the second temple. The Old Testament closes with the people of God still waiting for the return of God’s glory to the temple (Hag 2:3, 7, 9; Zech 2:5).

The brief outline given above concerning the concept of glory in the Old Testament helps us to understand the point of John’s assertion in John 1:14 regarding the glory of the Logos. John was well aware of Ezekiel’s teaching concerning the eschatological return of God’s glory. John’s assertion is that, in the person of Jesus, the glory of God, which had withdrawn previously from idolatrous Israel, has now returned. In Jesus, God’s personal presence has returned to dwell majestically among his people.

The Significance of the Incarnate Logos Dwelling among Us in John 1:14

John 1:14 is significant in containing the first note in a symphony of references in John’s Gospel to the temple theme. In the first two clauses in John 1:14, it is written that “the Word became flesh, and made his dwelling among us.” Most modern translations talk about the Logos dwelling among us, but this reasonable idiomatic translation effectively masks for today’s reader the important allusion that John was making at this point. A literal translation of the second clause of John 1:14 would be: “and he pitched [his] tent among us.”

The word translated as dwelt or made a dwelling (ἐσκήνωσεν) is related to the word tent (σκηνή). A reader familiar with the original Greek would easily see this connection. Jesus set up tent among us! In addition, a reader familiar with the LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible would also see a clear connection between the verb ἐσκήνωσεν and the idea of the tabernacle, given that σκηνή was the usual word in the LXX for denoting the tabernacle. Thus it is also possible to translate the second clause of John 1:14 as: “and he tabernacled among us.”

The word tent or tabernacle conveys to minds familiar with the Hebrew Bible an idea rich in theological significance. The tabernacle was a portable temple. It was a sacred tent that could be packed up and carried around until the day when Israel had rest. When Israel achieved rest, then the portable temple would become permanent, i.e., the tabernacle would become a temple (Deut 12:10–11). The tabernacle/temple was the supreme symbol of God’s presence among his people. The tabernacle/temple was considered to be God’s dwelling place among Israel. This is clear from the Hebrew word underlying σκηνή in the LXX, namely, משכן, which is based on the Hebrew root שכן, which conveys the idea of dwelling.

By saying that the Logos had tabernacled among us, John was clearly asserting the idea (controversial in its day) that Jesus is the ultimate temple, which is the same as saying that Jesus is the supreme instance of God dwelling among us. Jesus is the Emmanuel, the with-us-God. The tabernacle/temple was the place where human beings could obtain the forgiveness of their sins in order that they might then be able to enter into the presence of God, and experience blessing in his presence. Therefore, by saying that the incarnate Logos had dwelt among us, John was claiming that Jesus is the new and ultimate temple, the locus of divine forgiveness and fellowship.

Why Did Jesus Clear the Temple? The Second Reason: Zeal for God

The second reason given in John’s Gospel to explain the extreme action of Jesus in clearing the temple is given in John 2:17 (for a discussion about the first reason , see “Why Did Jesus Clear the Temple? The First Reason: Commercialization of the Temple”). After reflection on the significance of this event, presumably after Jesus had been resurrected, “[Jesus’] disciples remembered that it was written: ‘Zeal for your house will consume me’” (John 2:17). The disciples came to understand that Jesus’ action in clearing the temple was not a case of Jesus losing his temper. Jesus was angry, but it was not an unjustified anger. Jesus cleared the temple because of his zeal for his Father’s house.

The statement “zeal for your house will consume me” is a quotation from Ps 69:9 [69:10 MT]. Psalm 69 is a prayer of salvation offered to God by a righteous sufferer. In the context of Ps 69, the word translated as consumed (אכלתני from the root אכל eat) has negative connotations. The second half of Ps 69:9, which is not quoted in John’s Gospel, confirms this: “zeal for your house has consumed me; the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen upon me.” In Ps 69:9, the idea of being consumed is paralleled with being reproached. This connection between zeal and reproach in Ps 69 links zeal for God together with opposition. When people stand up for God, they will experience some from of opposition.

The classic case of zeal for God leading to opposition is seen in Jesus himself. Because of Jesus’ zeal for the proper worship of God, he suffered opposition. Jesus’ zeal for God meant that his words and actions challenged the status quo. Driving people out of the temple and overturning tables was a challenge to Jewish society in general, and in particular to the Jewish authorities. As a result of his zeal for God, Jesus ended up being “consumed,” that is, destroyed.

Jesus’ zeal for God ultimately led to the cross. This was where Jesus was “consumed.” Jesus was prepared to challenge the way in which the people of his day were treating God; but he suffered opposition, and died on the cross, as a result of his zeal. This is why, when quoting Ps 69:9, the author of John’s Gospel changed the sense of the original wording has consumed—the Hebrew perfect conjugation in אכלתני is effectively equivalent to a past tense—to will consume—καταφάγεται is the future tense of κατεσθίω eat up, devour, consume. This change suggests that John and the other disciples understood that the ultimate fulfillment of Ps 69:9 took place in the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus’ zeal for God ultimately led to his consumption on the cross. But the immediate significance of the content of John 2:17 is to explain that Jesus’ zeal for God was one of the key reasons that led Jesus to clear the temple.